Re: Cisco and DSL + OT DSL question [7:14275]
One other quick note- If you decide to invest in the 1750, and you are doing so partially for the Voice capability, please note the following: 1750's come in 3 flavors- 1750, 1750-2v, and 1750-4v. The 1750 mainboard has a slot for the DSP chip that makes the voice cap. possible. The base model doesn't have it populated, and these are the most abundant on ebay. Most of the sellers don't even know if they are selling a base unit, 2v, or 4v, and unless you contact them and ask them to confirm if it is at least a 2v or not... don't bid on it. It's more expensive to buy the DSP separately and add it on then it is to get one off auction with it already in it. If the auction states that it comes with a 2port FXS/FXO/E&M port card, still ask the seller to email you a "sh ver" output of the router in question. Without the DSP, the voice ports won't show up in the sh ver. All voice parts separate- they'll run roughly the same amt. (275-400USD) I explain this only because I got burned on my first 1750 purchase- the seller thought it was a 2v, and didn't open it up to verify. He went off the memory specs it was displaying and compared that to Cisco Public site tech specs. The router wound up just having memory upgrades, and no DSP. Also, the DSP's are in the following fashion - PVDM-4 supports (1) 2port FXS/FXO/E&M module, PVDM-8 supports 2... 2 channels are required for each port in simple terms. Cheers! Mark - Original Message - From: "Ole Drews Jensen" To: "'Mark Odette II'" ; "Ole Drews Jensen" ; Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2001 11:17 AM Subject: RE: Cisco and DSL + OT DSL question [7:14275] > Thanks a lot Mark, > > I will look into that solution. > > Take care, > > Ole > > ~~~ > Ole Drews Jensen > Systems Network Manager > CCNA, MCSE, MCP+I > RWR Enterprises, Inc. > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > ~~~ > http://www.RouterChief.com > ~~~ > NEED A JOB ??? > http://www.oledrews.com/job > ~~~ > > > -Original Message----- > From: Mark Odette II [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2001 11:18 AM > To: Ole Drews Jensen; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Cisco and DSL + OT DSL question [7:14275] > > > Ole- > Many will suggest that if you want to share your DSL connection with > multiple hosts in your private LAN, then you should go out and buy a Netgear > or Linksys DSL Router/4port Switch combo unit. It's supposed to be quite > easy to set up and works greate. The only negative I've heard is that the > "firewall" feature on them isn't worth the configuration. Also, the NAT > feature isn't what it's cracked up to be either- at least for the NetGear. > A colleague of mine had me take a look at one that he was setting up for a > client, and the ISP was giving them 5 static IP's. So, they wanted to > static nat between multiple hosts for WWW, SMTP/POP3, etc. I later come to > find that it would only let you do one static, and the rest would do > dynamic. > This was roughly 4 months ago. > > For a cisco solution, you could go with a C17xx and the WIC-1ENET card that > is designed ONLY for the 1700's. > The WIC-1ENET card is PPPoE compliant, and it is the lesser expensive > alternative to the other option - WIC-1ADSL. > > Obviously, of course, buying a Cisco router for your shared WAN usage is > more expensive, but I think it is better in the long run for many reasons. > You get a router that can double as a lab device, you can NAT with more > versatility, you get at least a little exposure to how the PPPoE/oA configs > work (with the ENET card it is simple, but the ADSL card gets you to > learning the real functionality of DSL ATM), and with the 1750's you get a > router that also have VoIP capability. > > I invested in a 1750-4V with the WIC-1ENET (the wic runs roughly 150-200USD > on ebay) option off of ebay, and really wished I had gotten the 1751 for > VLAN labs, but I'm still quite happy with what I have. The WIC-1ADSL is > IMHO way over priced (500+USD) for what it gives you in functionality, but > if currency is not an issue, then I would get it for the indepth hands-on > experience. > > As far as I know, the only reason for the ISP's usage of PPPoE over PPPoATM > (I could be wrong about this though) is for accounting reasons. That is the > only real purpose behind the Enternet300 software. You should be able to > connect without login id/pw, but the PPPoE implementation forces this, and > I've been explained that it is purely for accounting reasons. Without the > ID/PW
RE: Cisco and DSL + OT DSL question [7:14275]
Once again, thanks Mark. Have a great day, Ole ~~~ Ole Drews Jensen Systems Network Manager CCNA, MCSE, MCP+I RWR Enterprises, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~~~ http://www.RouterChief.com ~~~ NEED A JOB ??? http://www.oledrews.com/job ~~~ -Original Message- From: Mark Odette II [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2001 1:22 PM To: Ole Drews Jensen; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Cisco and DSL + OT DSL question [7:14275] One other quick note- If you decide to invest in the 1750, and you are doing so partially for the Voice capability, please note the following: 1750's come in 3 flavors- 1750, 1750-2v, and 1750-4v. The 1750 mainboard has a slot for the DSP chip that makes the voice cap. possible. The base model doesn't have it populated, and these are the most abundant on ebay. Most of the sellers don't even know if they are selling a base unit, 2v, or 4v, and unless you contact them and ask them to confirm if it is at least a 2v or not... don't bid on it. It's more expensive to buy the DSP separately and add it on then it is to get one off auction with it already in it. If the auction states that it comes with a 2port FXS/FXO/E&M port card, still ask the seller to email you a "sh ver" output of the router in question. Without the DSP, the voice ports won't show up in the sh ver. All voice parts separate- they'll run roughly the same amt. (275-400USD) I explain this only because I got burned on my first 1750 purchase- the seller thought it was a 2v, and didn't open it up to verify. He went off the memory specs it was displaying and compared that to Cisco Public site tech specs. The router wound up just having memory upgrades, and no DSP. Also, the DSP's are in the following fashion - PVDM-4 supports (1) 2port FXS/FXO/E&M module, PVDM-8 supports 2... 2 channels are required for each port in simple terms. Cheers! Mark - Original Message - From: "Ole Drews Jensen" To: "'Mark Odette II'" ; "Ole Drews Jensen" ; Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2001 11:17 AM Subject: RE: Cisco and DSL + OT DSL question [7:14275] > Thanks a lot Mark, > > I will look into that solution. > > Take care, > > Ole > > ~~~ > Ole Drews Jensen > Systems Network Manager > CCNA, MCSE, MCP+I > RWR Enterprises, Inc. > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > ~~~ > http://www.RouterChief.com > ~~~ > NEED A JOB ??? > http://www.oledrews.com/job > ~~~ > > > -Original Message----- > From: Mark Odette II [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2001 11:18 AM > To: Ole Drews Jensen; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Cisco and DSL + OT DSL question [7:14275] > > > Ole- > Many will suggest that if you want to share your DSL connection with > multiple hosts in your private LAN, then you should go out and buy a Netgear > or Linksys DSL Router/4port Switch combo unit. It's supposed to be quite > easy to set up and works greate. The only negative I've heard is that the > "firewall" feature on them isn't worth the configuration. Also, the NAT > feature isn't what it's cracked up to be either- at least for the NetGear. > A colleague of mine had me take a look at one that he was setting up for a > client, and the ISP was giving them 5 static IP's. So, they wanted to > static nat between multiple hosts for WWW, SMTP/POP3, etc. I later come to > find that it would only let you do one static, and the rest would do > dynamic. > This was roughly 4 months ago. > > For a cisco solution, you could go with a C17xx and the WIC-1ENET card that > is designed ONLY for the 1700's. > The WIC-1ENET card is PPPoE compliant, and it is the lesser expensive > alternative to the other option - WIC-1ADSL. > > Obviously, of course, buying a Cisco router for your shared WAN usage is > more expensive, but I think it is better in the long run for many reasons. > You get a router that can double as a lab device, you can NAT with more > versatility, you get at least a little exposure to how the PPPoE/oA configs > work (with the ENET card it is simple, but the ADSL card gets you to > learning the real functionality of DSL ATM), and with the 1750's you get a > router that also have VoIP capability. > > I invested in a 1750-4V with the WIC-1ENET (the wic runs roughly 150-200USD > on ebay) option off of ebay, and really wished I had gotten the 1751 for > VLAN labs, but I'm still quite happy with what I have. The WIC-1ADSL is > IMHO way over pr
Re: Cisco and DSL + OT DSL question [7:14275]
Ole- Many will suggest that if you want to share your DSL connection with multiple hosts in your private LAN, then you should go out and buy a Netgear or Linksys DSL Router/4port Switch combo unit. It's supposed to be quite easy to set up and works greate. The only negative I've heard is that the "firewall" feature on them isn't worth the configuration. Also, the NAT feature isn't what it's cracked up to be either- at least for the NetGear. A colleague of mine had me take a look at one that he was setting up for a client, and the ISP was giving them 5 static IP's. So, they wanted to static nat between multiple hosts for WWW, SMTP/POP3, etc. I later come to find that it would only let you do one static, and the rest would do dynamic. This was roughly 4 months ago. For a cisco solution, you could go with a C17xx and the WIC-1ENET card that is designed ONLY for the 1700's. The WIC-1ENET card is PPPoE compliant, and it is the lesser expensive alternative to the other option - WIC-1ADSL. Obviously, of course, buying a Cisco router for your shared WAN usage is more expensive, but I think it is better in the long run for many reasons. You get a router that can double as a lab device, you can NAT with more versatility, you get at least a little exposure to how the PPPoE/oA configs work (with the ENET card it is simple, but the ADSL card gets you to learning the real functionality of DSL ATM), and with the 1750's you get a router that also have VoIP capability. I invested in a 1750-4V with the WIC-1ENET (the wic runs roughly 150-200USD on ebay) option off of ebay, and really wished I had gotten the 1751 for VLAN labs, but I'm still quite happy with what I have. The WIC-1ADSL is IMHO way over priced (500+USD) for what it gives you in functionality, but if currency is not an issue, then I would get it for the indepth hands-on experience. As far as I know, the only reason for the ISP's usage of PPPoE over PPPoATM (I could be wrong about this though) is for accounting reasons. That is the only real purpose behind the Enternet300 software. You should be able to connect without login id/pw, but the PPPoE implementation forces this, and I've been explained that it is purely for accounting reasons. Without the ID/PW during the PPPoE negotiations, you can't get onto the upstream net. :( If you get the basic DSL from SBC (and I think it's the same for other carriers in the US), they'll send you a Westell or SpeedStream DSL modem, of which if you are dynamicly assigned your address, they use the modem in bridging mode. If you have a static IP, then your modem has the bridging mode turned off. If you have the time, you can sift through DSLReports.com on their public posting forum for some comments on the difference between the two modems as far as functionality and effeciency of throughput goes. The only thing I haven't figured out how to do is have a real-time gauge of my xfer rate, something the Enternet300 software did give me HTH Mark Odette II - Original Message ----- From: "Ole Drews Jensen" To: Sent: Monday, July 30, 2001 5:15 PM Subject: Cisco and DSL + OT DSL question [7:14275] > The first part of this message is not really a study question, but more like > a curiosity question. > > With DSL being very popular and Cisco having changed their CCNA/CCNP exams > not too long ago - why isn't there anything about DSl on the exams at all? > > I know that DSL is still not considered as reliable as dedicated lines, > frame relay, etc., but for SOHO users, it is perfect when available and when > the provider is not going belly up within 4 months. > > Any comments to this are very welcome. > > The second part is totally off topic, but goes with the DSL issue. > > I got ADSL with Southwestern Bell installed 8-9 months ago, and it has been > very reliable, plus the speed has been up to 2.2 mbps in download, which is > a good deal more than T1. > > However, I do not understand the technique behind DSL yet, so I am not sure > what's going on. The DSL router is connected to my phoneline, and it has an > ATM led on the front. Does that mean it actually works on an ATM network? > > Also, Since I have the router on a public IP address, why is it not > configured to give me a private address for my LAN (the cable that goes from > the router to the NIC in my PC) instead of another public IP address? > > And last, what about the EnterNet and PPPoE, what exactly is that, and > couldn't I use something else? > > I am sorry for these questions which might seem stupid to DSL experts, but I > am a beginner when it comes down to DSL. > > Thanks for any comments, and have a nice day... > > Ole > > ~~~ > Ole Drews Jensen > Systems Network Ma
RE: Cisco and DSL + OT DSL question [7:14275]
Thanks a lot Mark, I will look into that solution. Take care, Ole ~~~ Ole Drews Jensen Systems Network Manager CCNA, MCSE, MCP+I RWR Enterprises, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~~~ http://www.RouterChief.com ~~~ NEED A JOB ??? http://www.oledrews.com/job ~~~ -Original Message- From: Mark Odette II [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2001 11:18 AM To: Ole Drews Jensen; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Cisco and DSL + OT DSL question [7:14275] Ole- Many will suggest that if you want to share your DSL connection with multiple hosts in your private LAN, then you should go out and buy a Netgear or Linksys DSL Router/4port Switch combo unit. It's supposed to be quite easy to set up and works greate. The only negative I've heard is that the "firewall" feature on them isn't worth the configuration. Also, the NAT feature isn't what it's cracked up to be either- at least for the NetGear. A colleague of mine had me take a look at one that he was setting up for a client, and the ISP was giving them 5 static IP's. So, they wanted to static nat between multiple hosts for WWW, SMTP/POP3, etc. I later come to find that it would only let you do one static, and the rest would do dynamic. This was roughly 4 months ago. For a cisco solution, you could go with a C17xx and the WIC-1ENET card that is designed ONLY for the 1700's. The WIC-1ENET card is PPPoE compliant, and it is the lesser expensive alternative to the other option - WIC-1ADSL. Obviously, of course, buying a Cisco router for your shared WAN usage is more expensive, but I think it is better in the long run for many reasons. You get a router that can double as a lab device, you can NAT with more versatility, you get at least a little exposure to how the PPPoE/oA configs work (with the ENET card it is simple, but the ADSL card gets you to learning the real functionality of DSL ATM), and with the 1750's you get a router that also have VoIP capability. I invested in a 1750-4V with the WIC-1ENET (the wic runs roughly 150-200USD on ebay) option off of ebay, and really wished I had gotten the 1751 for VLAN labs, but I'm still quite happy with what I have. The WIC-1ADSL is IMHO way over priced (500+USD) for what it gives you in functionality, but if currency is not an issue, then I would get it for the indepth hands-on experience. As far as I know, the only reason for the ISP's usage of PPPoE over PPPoATM (I could be wrong about this though) is for accounting reasons. That is the only real purpose behind the Enternet300 software. You should be able to connect without login id/pw, but the PPPoE implementation forces this, and I've been explained that it is purely for accounting reasons. Without the ID/PW during the PPPoE negotiations, you can't get onto the upstream net. :( If you get the basic DSL from SBC (and I think it's the same for other carriers in the US), they'll send you a Westell or SpeedStream DSL modem, of which if you are dynamicly assigned your address, they use the modem in bridging mode. If you have a static IP, then your modem has the bridging mode turned off. If you have the time, you can sift through DSLReports.com on their public posting forum for some comments on the difference between the two modems as far as functionality and effeciency of throughput goes. The only thing I haven't figured out how to do is have a real-time gauge of my xfer rate, something the Enternet300 software did give me HTH Mark Odette II - Original Message ----- From: "Ole Drews Jensen" To: Sent: Monday, July 30, 2001 5:15 PM Subject: Cisco and DSL + OT DSL question [7:14275] > The first part of this message is not really a study question, but more like > a curiosity question. > > With DSL being very popular and Cisco having changed their CCNA/CCNP exams > not too long ago - why isn't there anything about DSl on the exams at all? > > I know that DSL is still not considered as reliable as dedicated lines, > frame relay, etc., but for SOHO users, it is perfect when available and when > the provider is not going belly up within 4 months. > > Any comments to this are very welcome. > > The second part is totally off topic, but goes with the DSL issue. > > I got ADSL with Southwestern Bell installed 8-9 months ago, and it has been > very reliable, plus the speed has been up to 2.2 mbps in download, which is > a good deal more than T1. > > However, I do not understand the technique behind DSL yet, so I am not sure > what's going on. The DSL router is connected to my phoneline, and it has an > ATM led on the front. Does that mean it actually works on an ATM network? > > Also, Since I have the router on a public IP address, why
Re: Cisco and DSL + OT DSL question [7:14275]
> With DSL being very popular and Cisco having changed their CCNA/CCNP exams > not too long ago - why isn't there anything about DSl on the exams at all? A good number of the Cisco DSL gear out there does not use IOS Cisco 67X Series Routers (CLI OS called CBOS) NI-1 DSLAMS (GUI Only) Only recentely announced modems/routers as well as NI-2 DSLAMS offer IOS capabilities. There is also very little that is DSL specific. The now defunct CLEC that I worked for used Cisco DSL gear. Other than the modems/router (67X series CPE) and the DSLAMS, the rest of the equipment was just standard Cisco gear with ATM interfaces. > I know that DSL is still not considered as reliable as dedicated lines, > frame relay, etc., but for SOHO users, it is perfect when available and when > the provider is not going belly up within 4 months. DSL's statbility is based on the copper in the ground as well as the carrier. I had customers up for months without any service problem whatsover. > > However, I do not understand the technique behind DSL yet, so I am not sure > what's going on. The DSL router is connected to my phoneline, and it has an > ATM led on the front. Does that mean it actually works on an ATM network? It appears as if your carrier uses PPPoATM. To answer your question, yes, you data is likley hauled back to a router or termination device (VIA the DSLAM) in ATM cells. > > Also, Since I have the router on a public IP address, why is it not > configured to give me a private address for my LAN (the cable that goes from > the router to the NIC in my PC) instead of another public IP address? The router may be configured in Bridging Mode (RFC1483). Instead of the modem/router having the IP assigned by the ISP, it is assigned to your NIC. If you have a 67X series router, that device is capable of acting as a modem (instead of a bridge if you use rfc1483 bridging) > And last, what about the EnterNet and PPPoE, what exactly is that, and > couldn't I use something else? > PPPoE is in part an authentication scheme, as well as an encapsulation scheme. EnterNet Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=14294&t=14275 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Cisco and DSL + OT DSL question [7:14275]
I'll answer the PPPOe part. I used the enternet pppoe client for about two days when I got my DSL. What a piece of garbage. Go out and buy a linksys/netgear etc braodband router. They have built in pppoe clients. Plus, the router will assign private IPs to your internal machines, allowing you to share the dsl connection. Neil Schneider ""Ole Drews Jensen"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > The first part of this message is not really a study question, but more like > a curiosity question. > > With DSL being very popular and Cisco having changed their CCNA/CCNP exams > not too long ago - why isn't there anything about DSl on the exams at all? > > I know that DSL is still not considered as reliable as dedicated lines, > frame relay, etc., but for SOHO users, it is perfect when available and when > the provider is not going belly up within 4 months. > > Any comments to this are very welcome. > > The second part is totally off topic, but goes with the DSL issue. > > I got ADSL with Southwestern Bell installed 8-9 months ago, and it has been > very reliable, plus the speed has been up to 2.2 mbps in download, which is > a good deal more than T1. > > However, I do not understand the technique behind DSL yet, so I am not sure > what's going on. The DSL router is connected to my phoneline, and it has an > ATM led on the front. Does that mean it actually works on an ATM network? > > Also, Since I have the router on a public IP address, why is it not > configured to give me a private address for my LAN (the cable that goes from > the router to the NIC in my PC) instead of another public IP address? > > And last, what about the EnterNet and PPPoE, what exactly is that, and > couldn't I use something else? > > I am sorry for these questions which might seem stupid to DSL experts, but I > am a beginner when it comes down to DSL. > > Thanks for any comments, and have a nice day... > > Ole > > ~~~ > Ole Drews Jensen > Systems Network Manager > CCNA, MCSE, MCP+I > RWR Enterprises, Inc. > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > ~~~ > http://www.RouterChief.com > ~~~ > NEED A JOB ??? > http://www.oledrews.com/job > ~~~ Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=14287&t=14275 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cisco and DSL + OT DSL question [7:14275]
The first part of this message is not really a study question, but more like a curiosity question. With DSL being very popular and Cisco having changed their CCNA/CCNP exams not too long ago - why isn't there anything about DSl on the exams at all? I know that DSL is still not considered as reliable as dedicated lines, frame relay, etc., but for SOHO users, it is perfect when available and when the provider is not going belly up within 4 months. Any comments to this are very welcome. The second part is totally off topic, but goes with the DSL issue. I got ADSL with Southwestern Bell installed 8-9 months ago, and it has been very reliable, plus the speed has been up to 2.2 mbps in download, which is a good deal more than T1. However, I do not understand the technique behind DSL yet, so I am not sure what's going on. The DSL router is connected to my phoneline, and it has an ATM led on the front. Does that mean it actually works on an ATM network? Also, Since I have the router on a public IP address, why is it not configured to give me a private address for my LAN (the cable that goes from the router to the NIC in my PC) instead of another public IP address? And last, what about the EnterNet and PPPoE, what exactly is that, and couldn't I use something else? I am sorry for these questions which might seem stupid to DSL experts, but I am a beginner when it comes down to DSL. Thanks for any comments, and have a nice day... Ole ~~~ Ole Drews Jensen Systems Network Manager CCNA, MCSE, MCP+I RWR Enterprises, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~~~ http://www.RouterChief.com ~~~ NEED A JOB ??? http://www.oledrews.com/job ~~~ Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=14275&t=14275 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
